Performance Report Subcommittee Meeting 6_25_2001
Action Items are bolded and underlined.
Introduction
Rob Sheehan started the meeting with review of the handouts and a discussion of the agenda.
Employment Salary Outcome Data
We reviewed a new report of salaries of recent graduates with associates and baccalaureate degrees who are under 24 years old. This is intended to mitigate the problem of graduates who return to jobs they have held for many years. This report was in the handout. The difference in salary between associates and baccalaureate is best seen within a discipline. Campus representatives suggested comparing these salaries with a cohort of similar aged high school students who did not go to college. Possibly we could use census data.
Action Item: We reviewed statewide mean and median salaries and decided to use mean salaries rather than median. After comparing the two, mean seems to serve our purpose better.
Distance Learning
We discussed a handout showing an attempt to match the course and section IDs of distance learning courses that we have from OLN with HEI data. Many schools are using a different course and or section ID in the OLN data than is in HEI. The report we have in mind for the 2001 Performance Report for distance learning is simply to report the magnitude of the business, number of courses, students, credits earned etc. In later years we will investigate the success of students in distance learning.
Action Item: Campus representatives were asked to provide cross walk files showing the coding they use for course and section ID in HEI and OLN.
Action Item: Campuses were asked to mail or fax their North Central reports of distance learning to Rob Sheehan at 614-466-5866.
There is (probably a great deal of) distance learning that is not in the OLN catalog. HEI data entry (to occur within the next 6 months) will provide a way to report distance learning courses that are not on OLN.
Distance Learning is not well known at the campus level especially on large campuses. It is an entrepreneurial activity and insisting on standards may be self-defeating. Faculty incentives were suggested.
The goal for the 2001 Performance Report is to provide a qualified snapshot of the distance learning business. We recognize that this may promote better data. Rob asked for quantitative anecdotes to supplement our data.
Action Item: We decided to match the OLN data with HEI for courses offered in WI or SP 2001 rather than AU 2000.
Another suggestion was to summarize our data by institution or degrees rather than individual courses.
We discussed the use of ST codes and suggested a “best practices” report at our next HEI users conference, because some schools use this code and others do not.
At the state level we lack data to argue that distance learning is expensive both for individual course level and for the infrastructure.
Organization of the Reports
The organization of the reports on the WWW, by theme with links to the actual reports was approved. We discussed imbedding statements of the mission of the institutions in the reports. Each section of the report should stand alone in describing its content.
We discussed providing examples of student experience and how the reports reflect the experience as a means of presenting the reports. This technique worked well in presenting the 2000 report to the media. Sheehan asked for volunteers to construct these examples.
We discussed how to organize multi year data in the reports. The suggestion was to reduce quantity by eliminating some of the breakouts of data in the reports. Note changes year by year. Provide a link to a primary data chart that has all years. In the printed report the link to detail will be a WWW link. Narrative must be included in both the high level and detail reports because they need to stand-alone.
Action Item: Campus representatives were asked to suggest columns that could be eliminated from the reports.
Legislative reaction to performance reporting
We discussed the reaction of legislators, especially inexperienced ones, to performance funding. It would appear that newer legislators do not understand the details of the higher education budget, nor do they have the time to learn the details. The legislature plans to set up a study commission on the state subsidy formula. Both the 2 and 4-year sectors will have two representatives on the commission. This group plans to have a report by the end of 2001. It was suggested that this might be an opportunity for higher education because the plan of this study commission will carry some sense of ownership by the legislators involved.
We discussed interest of our legislators in the national performance report. They want to know which states average. Sheehan reported a cluster analysis he did using the composite of 5 different scores in the national report. The states most like Ohio are South Dakota, Missouri, Florida, Oregon, South Carolina, Georgia and West Virginia.
Draft of Chancellor’s Report to the Governor
Sheehan shared a copy of the Chancellor’s report to the Governor and the discussion of the 2001 Performance Report in it.
FAFSA
We observed how 2-year students frequently do not apply to FAFSA. Campus representatives suggested that this might be because these students are working, independent and not eligible for aid. We noted that 2 year students are often older
and lack ready access to counseling for availability of financial aid (once
they leave the high school setting.) Thus, access is an issue of availability of financial aid, reasonable
tuition, and effective communication with prospective students who may be missed by traditional recruiting efforts.
Graduation rates and time and credits to degree
We reviewed the consultation’s previous endorsement of possibly including a new measured outcome in these reports: Students who achieve 30 semester credit hours. Data for this possible outcome are currently being collected through the Cohort tracking file. The Cohort Tracking file is also being used for all campuses that have unit record data on the IPEDS cohort to compute statewide graduation rates.
Action Item: Regents’ staff will analyze which campuses have submitted their CT fles and reminders will be sent to others.
Campuses were reminded to submit their IPEDS graduation rates.
Predicting Grad rates.
Sheehan shared some national reports from Postsecondary Education Opportunity on predicting graduation rates and year to year persistence. The idea is to compare the prediction to actual data. We discussed making our own regression formulas for Ohio, but concluded there are not enough samples to be statistically accurate. It is not clear how to include these predictions in the Ohio report. A suggestion was to site available reports for statewide prediction rates. Suggested reports were U.S. News and World Report and/or the Postsecondary Opportunity Reports.
Faculty Survey Data
We discussed a handout of faculty demographic data taken from the faculty survey data.
Action Item: Consultation Representatives will review this report with their campuses.
We focused on faculty activity relative to distance learning. We need to distinguish between courses that are designed for the WWW and those that simply use WWW facilities. It was suggested that the next version of the survey clarify the distance learning question. We considered and rejected the idea of getting distance learning data form the ST file. OLN has a list of distance learning courses. Large campuses report that they can’t get good data on distance learning at the campus level.
IPEDS Financial report
We noted a desire to share with the Governor in this next report an analysis of Ohio’s instructional costs compared to the rest of the nation, or other individual state. Consultation members seemed supportive of this idea, especially as it appears that Ohio’s instructional costs are below the national average – a finding worth noting in a state that has relatively high tuition and relatively low state aid. It is difficult to find comparable data to use for this report. We noted that the Halstead report ended in 1997 or 1998. Rich Petrick is trying to resurrect this report with the SHEEHO organization. NACUBO data are not yet available as they are still in process of being collected. We had a handout of IPEDS financial data showing I & G Costs per FTE broken down by graduate and undergraduate. IPEDS data does not breakdown I&G Costs by graduate Vs undergraduate, but the FTE is broken down. There was a question of the validity of the assumptions used in allocating cost to graduate and undergraduate. We used the ratio of statewide average cost per FTE for graduate levels vs. undergraduate levels in the Ohio Resource Analysis for FY 1999. This ratio is 3.1… and we applied it to the I & G costs of other states as well as non-public institutions in Ohio as a means of prorating their I & G Costs to graduate and undergraduate FTE. We included professional FTE with graduate FTE.
It was also pointed out the non-public institutions have changed their financial reporting standards and this might influence how we select their data from the IPEDS reports. For the Ohio public institutions we used SCH from HEI because we saw that the IPEDS data was inaccurate for several institutions.
It was suggested that we breakout branches from other 2 year institutions for Ohio.
A person named Mike Middaugh from Delaware was mentioned as a national expert on this subject.
Action Item: Regents staff will share these data with fiscal officers for their review.
Faculty Diversity
We discussed a report of Faculty diversity taken from data from the FD file for FY 2000. It was suggested that the scope of this file is too broad to represent the faculty. Many FD records represent faculty who do not teach. We should also try to breakout the regional campuses, and determine full time on a campus basis. Action Item: We questioned the usefulness of this report and decided to drop it.
External Research
Action Item: Rob discussed handout and asked university consultation representatives to review this with their Graduate Deans.
Workforce Training
Sandra Span will provide this report.
Remedial Instruction
We noted the difference in age cutoff between the report on magnitude of remedial instruction and the report on success of remedial instruction. If we increase the cutoff to 20 for the magnitude report, we may get lower rates. There was discussion of eliminating the older group of students from the report. In the write up we should identify why we have the age split.
Action Item: For the age cutoff we will use <20 years and >=20 years as group splits for both reports.
We noted that the magnitude of remedial instruction on university main campuses is bimodal due to different policies.
Action Item: We agreed to show remedial instruction of the branches together with their main campus. Action Item: We agreed to footnote main campuses that offer little remedial instruction.
We were advised to distinguish between the remedial mission of the institution and remedial students. Avoid the term Academic Year.
GPA of Mobile Students
We noted that the GPA of the transfer cohort does not include grades earned at the transfer-from school. Action Item: We decided to report the AU term GPA (not cumulative GPA) for both the transfer and non-transfer cohorts.
Employment Outcomes of Graduates
We noted how graduates tend to stay in the state or leave as a function of field of study.
For international master students we intend to examine in-state employment 2 years after graduation, although we will not necessarily include this in the performance report.
IPEDS Graduation Rates
Action Item: This year we plan on only reporting the six year rates for baccalaureate and three year rate for associates.
Next Meeting is July 20